Does the US have the right to be leader of the war against terrorism?

Question

Take a look at this... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6930845.stm

Answer 1

The US in it`s self rightious role as leader against terrorism has conviniently forgotten that the UK has been subjected to terrorisme since the 1970s from the IRA who were funded quite substantially from donations amassed from their campaigns in the US...US citizens have helped fund the IRA and therefore supported terrorism in the UK.....not to mention all the secret CIA involvment in San Salvador,Nicaragua and other central and south American coutries.....The uK see the US as hypocrits and nothing more,,,now with PM Brown in charge I think he will cool our relations with the US and about time too

Answer 2

Justice has been given to this soldier for his heinous acts that were unrelated to his mission in any way. No soldier in any army in any war should act this way. Yet the Japanese soldiers in Nanking in WWII raped 20,000 women! Where were the trials of these men?
The US may or may not have the right to lead the war. It certainly has the strength to do it. Not that might makes right. But yes, we do have the right to defend ourselves after 9/11, and we certainly should have done more long before that happened.
In my opinion, however, Iraq is the wrong war. Afghanistan is or at least was the right place to attack. Al-Quaida and the Taliban were there. Iraq was an opportunistic war pushed forward by the Bush camp. He wanted to attack Iraq long before 9/11 and this is well documented. Lies and fancy charts and UN testimonies about WMD were the lead up propaganda to take advantage of this opportunity.
In this respect, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have brought shame on our country via a cold-blooded use of a real threat to create another incidental war that has not yet been proven nor totally demonstrated to actually support the real war on terror.

Answer 3

properly a user-friendly fake impact is that our enemy would not stand in front human beings and combat. They sting and cover. Sending hundreds of troops will basically require greater aspects kit nutrition and so on and so on. there will be an outstanding style of status around and no enemy to shoot. We cant in basic terms blow in the process the cities and harm properties because of the fact many of the inhabitants is harmless and actually against the taliban. Hitler replaced right into a tyrant and clearly wasnt that great... he misplaced. So dont difficulty appropriate to the conflict on terrorism its no longer effecting you or the economic device too a great deal. militia isnt finding for oil or finding to take over. they are in basic terms attempting to unfold democracy worldwide extensive. carry the third worldwide worldwide places as much as par. they are nonetheless interior the caveman era and the romans lived greater useful than them hundreds of years in the past. If we taim the middle east terrorism would be minimized.

Answer 4

Anyone, be it America or Britain, who are considered the most powerful military forces in the world, have not only the right, but the DUTY to act as leaders against despicable acts such as terrorism.

What would you rather we do, bend over and let the terrorists take us up the ****!!!!!!

Answer 5

Do you honestly think that the act of one man defines an entire country or a military.

The crime was a tragedy but that sort of thing happens even in the civilian world.

It is just another excuse leftwings are using to surrender and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Answer 6

Sure the US has the right. Remember there are over 170,000 troops over there fighting. Large cities in the US with population less than 170,000 have a higher crime rates. Not to mention the troops fighting are seeing stuff we have not seen, this could be causing them to fight back in their own way instead of the military way. They may be trying to seek revenge as in the article you quoted in your question. That was the case. Of course the US will lead. There is no one else except Great Britain that can do this.

Answer 7

What does this article have to do with whether or not America should be leading the war on terrorism? The U.S. is fighting a group that wants to destroy it. The article you provided is a link that tells the outcome of a soldier involved in a rape case. Are you trying to suggest that leaders of the U.S. government told him to rape that child and kill her family? I could find articles of terrorist cutting off heads of innocent people. Bombs killing women and children, etc, etc.. And in every case the people who did these things were told by their leaders to do these things. Why is it that people who ask these questions seem to forget why we are fighting. Does your computer not receive the articles that show what the terrorist are doing and saying. You people make me Sick.

Answer 8

Off course the US does. That man was a criminal, and will never see the outside of prison until he is dying and in a hospital. Personally I think the Iraqi government should have been involved, but that's irrelevent now.

Answer 9

Yes, when they decided to bomb NYC on 9/11.

PS what happened in the story is horrible and should be punished, but don't forget the innocent Americans that lost their lives brutally on 9/11

Answer 10

So because of the actions of one soldier, the Americans shouldn't lead the war on terror?

Do you know how many people died in the first WTC bombing, the first bombing of the US embassy in Sudan, the second bombing of the embassy in Sudan, the bombing of the USS Cole, the second bombing of the WTC?

A LOT.

All of those attacks were aimed at who? AMERICANS.

I think we have the right to fight the terrorists who want to attack us and who have attacked us.